公司失败之谜新解

    我们招聘和提拔了一批又一批管理者，他们有着高超的分析技能，但社交能力极差，而我们似乎认为这一点并不重要。

    这个问题有多严重？最近，笔者与管理研究集团（Management Research Group）合作，对10年间收集的四个大陆60,000名管理者的数据进行了分析。我们提出了下列问题：从关注工作目标和其他人需求的能力方面来判断，有多少管理者能够入选top 33%？

    答案是，仅有0.77%。只有不足1%的领导者和管理者似乎在这两个方面都非常擅长。如果将范围扩大到50%，得到的答案也仅有5%。

    许多公司所面临的最大的挑战，背后的根源往往是社交能力不足。从最高层开始，如果领导者不擅长理解其他人，他们可能会制定一项策略，期望获得所有人的支持，而不会去考虑其他人对方案的想法。实际上，麦肯锡公司（McKinsey & Co）在15年间统计的数据显示，仅有30%的改革方案取得了成功。

    高管往往期望员工遵守指令，按照计划执行策略，却从来不会去考虑人性因素。在对员工进行绩效反馈时，人力资源部会提供数据，希望人们做出改正，却从来没有意识到，有时候批评和威胁一个人的生命并无两样。

    那么正确的做法应该是怎样的？瞻博网络（Juniper Networks，笔者的客户）完全抛弃了绩效管理排名，因为它意识到业绩评估会造成社交威胁，进而影响合作。这种尝试已有四年时间，结果如何？员工积极性提高，薪酬差异化更大，不合适的人会更快地离开公司。

    简而言之：我们是高度社会化的生物，在许多情况下，社交需求的重要性远远高于身体需求。正如利伯曼在书中所形容的那样，马斯洛或许是错误的：社交并非处于需求金字塔的顶端，而是与身体需求一样处在下方的基础位置。除非我们在设计机构的时候就接受、考虑这一观点，否则，只有不足30%的员工在积极工作的现象会持续下去，而许多最重要的机构最终也将走向衰败。（财富中文网）

    大卫•洛克为神经领导力研究所联合创始人，是一名顾问，著有《正常运作的大脑》一书。欢迎于11月6日与7日亲临在华盛顿特区举办的神经领导力峰会，现场倾听马修•利伯曼分享他的思想。若无法前往现场，可观看免费视频。

    译者：刘进龙/汪皓   

    We have hired and promoted generations of managers with robust analytical skills and poor social skills, and we don't seem to think that matters.

    How bad is the problem? Recently, I worked with the firm Management Research Group to look into data on 60,000 managers collected over 10 years across four continents. We asked the following question: What percentage of managers could be considered among the top 33% of performers as measured by their ability to focus both on work goals and the needs of other people?

    The answer? Only 0.77%. Less than 1% of leaders and managers seem to be reasonably strong in both areas. If we look at just being in the top 50% of performers, we still only get 5%.

    A lack of social skills is behind some of the biggest challenges in organizations. Starting from the top, if leaders are not good at understanding others, they are likely to develop a strategy and expect everyone to get on board, without stopping to imagine how others may feel about that plan. In fact, just 30% of change initiatives succeed, according to 15 years of data from McKinsey & Co.

    Executives often expect that employees will follow orders and execute a strategy as planned without taking into account the human factors at play. When it comes time to give employees performance feedback, HR departments provide data and expect people to just change without recognizing that criticism is like having someone threaten your life.

    So, what can a positive story look like? Juniper Networks (JNPR) (full disclosure: a client of mine) got rid of performance management rankings entirely, recognizing it created social threats that reduced collaboration. The outcome of this experiment after four years so far? Increased motivation, greater pay differentiation, and wrong people leaving the company faster.

    In short: we are deeply social beings, with social needs mattering more than physical needs in many situations. As Lieberman describes in Social, Maslow may have been wrong: social is not up the pyramid, it is right down there at the base with physical needs. Until this insight makes its way into how we design our institutions, we may continue to see less than 30% of people in our organizations actively engaged in their work, and a number of our most important institutions failing.

    David Rock is cofounder of the Neuroleadership Institute, a consultant and author of Your Brain at Work. Hear Matt Lieberman present his thinking at the NeuroLeadership Summit in Washington D.C, November 6 and 7. Watch the action via free live streaming if you can't make it.